The coalition is watering down a commitment to tough new environmental emissions standards, raising the possibility of dirty coal-fired power stations such as Kingsnorth going ahead.
Green groups are aghast that a flagship policy called for in opposition by both Lib Dems and Tories, and which they last year tried to force on the Labour government, will now not be implemented in the coalition’s first energy bill to be published this year.
h/t Maz2
Even some elites have figured out their computers need electricity. The drones, not so much.
They probably think its done with mind power.
JMO
You may not like Hal Lindsey, but he does have a real good message about Islam this week. The fact he has had three wives, kinda chills me to.
He does have some good sources though.
I might add Islam is infiltrating churches as well.
The head of the Southern Baptists is now “Dialogging” with Imams. Religious revisionist Churchianity meets the mad lase prophet. What dialogue?. I will say this about the Jihad jerks, these sadists cover every angle.
Warning this vid has Christin content.
http://www.hallindsey.com/
If you want to burn dirty coal and pollute the air you breathe just so you can have cheaper electricity, then I guess it’s your shortsighted prerogative. I’m upwind of you, so carry on ‘crapping in your nest’. Most animals are smarter than that.
John, the latest generation of coal fired power stations are very clean. The greenies and proggies don’t like them because they produce carbon dioxide, which they seem to think is a pollutant, though it is colourless, odourless and tasteless and is in fact very good for vegetation, so we all benefit. So what’s the problem?
If they want to build coal fired power plants with all the newest technology to scrub toxic pollution from the stacks then of course I don’t have a problem with it. But that’s not what the article is about is it?
Only fools think CO2 is a pollutant. Anyone who isn’t living an Amish lifestyle, and who thinks CO2 is a pollutant, is a hypocrite.
The Greenies don’t like them because they produce energy allowing us to work less, live longer and safer live.
In Industrial nations those places with lots of power plants providing affordable energy for almost everyone people live twice as long than only 100 years ago.
For Greenies the greatest menace for the planet is man, excluding themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SME_YJgZbIQ
Said once by me, said “agin”.
We like our lives. What are we going to sacrifice – and for what benefit?
Someone please show me the formula, so I can determine my role!
As Canadians, we live in a northern climate. How will we alter our lives to produce an impact? How many of us must change? What benefit will it produce?
*sigh*
Take only what you need
Use everything you take
Respect the earth
Is that so difficult to do?
The NDP government of Nova Scotia recently backed off on its timetable to force Nova Scotia Power to reduce the burning of coal. A 12% increase in power rates was deemed too steep a price to pay for this measure. The timelines have been extended, and NSP has reduced its demand for rate increases to 6.5%
John, who gets to define what I “need”? You? Just curious.
Good to see “voter’s wrath” taking a hand in providing cautionary action on some of this phony climate crisis management legislating. Can’t boil the frog too fast you know.
Take only what you need
Use everything you take
Respect the earth
Is that so difficult to do?
– John Galt
Now that China consumes and pollutes way more than the USA, you should ask them.
>>If they want to build coal fired power plants with all the newest technology to scrub toxic pollution from the stacks then of course I don’t have a problem with it. But that’s not what the article is about is it?
All I see in the article is talk of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. There is no mention of ‘toxic pollution’, so I assume that the greenies are objecting to carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant. Generally, when a greenie talks about emissions and ‘dirty’, it goes without saying that he means carbon dioxide.
Green groups are aghast that a flagship policy failed. They may as well get used to this because there is not a politician on the planet who is going to shut of the power.
In Canada the greens heads exploded a month ago when the Canadian Pension Fund invested in the Oil Sands. Stay tuned for much more weeping and gnashing of teeth as the recession slowly destroys their false Gods and Demons.
Britain is facing a severe energy shortage in the next decade. The Green Energy Experiment was an expensive flop. If Brits want to keep the lights on, they are going to have to return to conventional energy. The green Utopians can continue to keep the faith in the power of green energy but eventually the politicians had to acknowledge reality. Currently there are only four electricity generating sources that can provide the scale, the reliability and the price that allows us to continue our standard of living – coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro. Alternative energy is in its infancy or just pipe dreams. Coal is an abundant fuel that is both an inexpensive and safe form of producing energy.
The newer coal plants are far superior to the old designs. They can be zero effluent (eg. recycling water and waste down to solid form)and scrub out most of the stack gases and virtually all particulates. Some can even be designed to process a portion of city sewage water. Coal is not perfect (spill piles) but alternative “green” energy has problems as well. Nuclear is the other option (the thorium ones look particularity effective) so I’m sure that they too will make a resurgence in popularity.
The greenies made sure that the accidental deaths of about 1400 ducks in an Alberta tailings pond became a world wide catastrophe, but the annual deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds by being clipped by power generating windmills is just the cost of doing “green” business.
More news for the greens to be aghast about.
US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” – temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.
Go to Climate Depot Web Page and for complete story.
Just WTF is this “green” energy???? The only “green” energy I know of is called photosynthesis,which uses(gasp) CO2 and nuclear energy(sunlight).Cripes.If brain cells were dynamite,100% of the eco-fascists couldn’t blow their nose’s.
Oh.And ignore”John Galt”.It regularly gets its but kicked at WUWT.
Galt, need extends to basic food, shelter, clothing. Beyond that, everything else is luxury of some degree. Or, might you have a different definition for need? If that’s the case what makes your definition more ‘right’ than mine?
Enough with your self-righteous pontifications around these parts. Nobody here wants to “crap in…[their] nest” as you eloquently put it. If you haven’t been paying attention, most folks around here are pro-nuclear power.
It sounds like the adults have come to the party in Britain.
Renewable “green” energy, be it solar or wind, are supplementary products, they can add to the existing mix of supply but they can never replace coal or nuclear by themselves. Sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and the sun does not shine, and I hate to rain on the green parade.
Anyone who thinks we can eliminate coal or nuclear does not understand the technical nature of those processes. When the wind blows in Ontario, we cut back on hydroelectric generation, not coal.
Any reduction in coal usage in Ontario is the direct result of a drop in overall demand, a function of the economic depression that has decimated hundreds of thousands of manufacturing, mining, and lumber jobs. Now that McGuinty has raised utility costs above all neighbouring provinces and states, those jobs will never return.
His green jobs promise is a heavily subsidized drop in the bucket compared to what he has lost. Ontario is Spain redux.
John, who gets to define what I “need”? You? Just curious.
How about your conscience, you do have one don’t you?
Realistic energy sources for the future are nuclear, coal, solar, and natural gas. Producing Energy does not have to produce toxic pollution. Unfortunately ignoring toxic pollution increases profits, and that needs to be addressed.
CO2 is not toxic pollution. I shouldn’t have to state that, however there are wing-nuts on this forum that read everything through their myopic preconception filters.